Tuesday, November 4, 2008

The state of Ohio, about 35 minutes ago, was announced for Obama. McCain needed both Ohio and Florida to have any realistic hope of winning the election. Too bad... but hopefully not too, too bad. Sigh.

It's over.

Congratulations to the next president of the United States... Barack Obama. May he serve with a wisdom beyond his experience.

Monday, November 3, 2008

There is an interactive electoral map over at Real Clear Politics. Here is my map with my best guess for tomorrow's election results:Click on map to enlarge

To win McCain would need to also win Virginia and New Mexico/Colorado or Virginia and Pennsylvania. That is too big of stretch in my mind to be realistic. But I am really ready for a down the stretch surprise!

Michael Ramirez of IBD sums up the attitude of the Obama campaign, it's surrogates, and much of the mainstream media (sorry to be redundant again...). More and more just about any kind of criticism of Obama by Republicans on any issue is being sloughed off and rebuffed with accusations of racism.Click on the cartoon to enlarge it.

As the race tightens this tactic of crying racism by the Obama campaign is becoming more and more frequent. Are they getting a little worried?

Rasmussen has Obama up by 3 points. But as you get into the internals of the poll it really looks even tighter:

Among those who “always” vote in general elections, Obama leads by just a single point.

As for those who have not yet voted but are “certain” they will do so, the race is tied at 48%. Two percent (2%) of these “certain” voters plan to vote for a third party option while 2% say they are undecided.

It is still an uphill battle for McCain/Palin and, with less than a week, unlikely that they'll squeeze out a victory. But it is getting interesting.

So I have gone from... "it's over" to "it ain't over till it's over" to now... "wouldn't it be sweet if John and Sarah pull out a last minute victory over the one."

If Obama were to lose, the shock and outrage on the left and in the MSM (sorry to be redundant) would register off the Richter scale... that would be something to behold.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Ignorance on the part of some of the electorate (more than one cares to know) is always to be expected in varying degrees. Here it is laughingly and shockingly highlighted by this Howard Stern video... an unlikely source for me to post (hat tip Newsbusters blog).

It wold be nice to imagine that those voting for either candidate had some idea of what policies each stood for, what each one's past record is, and (by all means) who their Vice Presidential running mate is!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

George Will writing today in a column entitled, McCain In A Bear Market, conjures up the words of the former Baltimore Orioles' manager Earl Weaver, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?"

Will gets to the heart of McCain's problematic approach to the ongoing economic Wall Street and Main Street downturn:

Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Well, I'm still of the mind that McCain is not making the case against Obama and for himself in this campaign. I was wavering a bit yesterday... then the debate. The gloom returned... it's over.

McCain ignored the issues that would damage Obama (his radical connections, his extreme liberal positions on issues like abortion and judicial nominations, the voter fraud-laden ACORN which he has long standing ties to...). No going for the jugular on McCain's part, and that even goes for his attempted scores on Obama's dangerous naivete concerning our war against Islamo-facist terrorism.

McCain's prescriptions for the current economic crisis (as well as his explanations how it developed) are closer to mainstream liberalism than conservatism, would inflate spending, and would increase government involvement and control in the private sector (that's us... people's financial and business affairs). Obama's ideas are out-in-out on the road to socialism. No clear contrast.

So... I'm getting ready for at least a cold four year winter.

But this video is the best case I have seen for casting a vote for McCain/Palin. I hope a lot of people see it. I still hope I am wrong and McCain wins. Enjoy:

Monday, October 6, 2008

Throwing in the towel too early? Well, I hope I'm wrong but I see no signs that anything but an Obama victory is what to expect on November 4th. Factors leading me to this not-too-early conclusion:

1. The overall anti-Bush sentiment in much of the electorate.2. The downturn in the markets and economy which always reflects negatively on the party that has the White House.3. The In-The-Tank Media wants Obama. They have the microphone.4. McCain has been unwilling to go after Obama on his vulnerabilities (Fannie Mae connections, Ayers connection, Rev. Wright connection, Democrat fingerprints all over the Sub-prime crisis... the list goes on) and doing so now (if he does) will be too little too late.5. McCain mishandled the Economic Crisis message by framing it as Wall Street greed and corruption which is not the cause and plays right into the Democrat playbook.6. Too little, too late. Undecideds have been breaking to Obama in the absence of a compelling reason to vote for McCain. Once people make the decision for a candidate it is less than likely they'll reconsider even in the light of new information.7. The mishandling of Governor Palin in the three weeks following the Republican convention. Her strengths were squandered and support lost as the McCain campaign chose to sacrifice her in order to play nice with the mainstream media... even as the MSM was ramping up their advocacy reporting for Obama.8. A muddled, watered down conservative message by McCain with no over-arching compelling theme. Obama is the most liberal candidate ever to run for president. McCain has not adequately contrasted himself with Obama in terms of economic policy, judicial nominations (3 probable Supreme Court nominations in the next 4 years), and governing philosophy (conservative vs. liberal).

Saturday, October 4, 2008

McCain needs to get on the stick and take it to Obama on the very things the media isn't willing to report on... or report on honestly (NY Times). One of those things is the long term relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers, domestic terrorist. Today Governor Sarah Palin weighed in at a campaign rally. Here is a Powerline Blog report. Be sure to read Stanley Kurtz's remarks (the last section). Next the McCain campaign needs to go on the offensive on the Mortgage/Credit/Financial Crisis and its genesis as explained in a couple of the videos below... no, not the comedic one ;)

NO MORE MR. NICE GUY from Powerline:The McCain camp says it is going to get tough on Barack Obama during the last month of the campaign. Well, I certainly hope so: if they've been waiting for someone else to do it--reporters, say--that hasn't worked out so well. Realistically, the only ones who can bring public attention to Obama's weaknesses are John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Which is why Palin told a group in Colorado today that Obama doesn't view America the same way they do:

Our opponent, though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would rather target their own country. Americans need to know this. ... We gotta start telling people what the other side represents.That is, I think, a harsh but fair assessment. You can see the Fox News report here.

The Associated Press ran interference for Obama, as usual:

Obama, who was a child when the group was active, has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities.While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, it's a stretch of any reading of the public record to say the pair ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.

Those aren't facts, those are the Obama campaign's talking points. But no one is going to hear anything else unless McCain and Palin start taking their message straight to the American people.

Close Shmose [Jonah Goldberg]I trust Stan entirely that Obama and Ayers were in fact close. But look: even if they weren't that close it would hardly mean Ayers is insignificant. Anyone who understands politics understands that who a president listens to is relevant. Who will the commander-in-chief let in the room? From what direction will he take advice? Who is on his "team" and who isn't? What's a reasonable argument and what isn't?

Even if Obama personally disliked Ayers and disagreed with his politics in meaningful ways, Obama still found Ayers to be someone worth listening to and working with. Ditto Jeremiah Wright. They were in his tent, not outside it. Ayers and Wright may be more extreme than Obama. Indeed, they surely are. But there is very little evidence in the record that Obama's ideological compass doesn't point in their direction. I don't think Americans should be single issue voters on the Ayers stuff. But I think it is absurd to argue — as the NY Times implicitly does — that this is all meaningless because Obama and Ayers were allegedly less than soulmates.

Again imagine a similar relationship between McCain and an abortion clinic bomber and the Times running a story a month before the election reassuring that it's no big deal because McCain and Mr. Planned Parenthood Bomber weren't "close."

CNN/NYT Bias Contest [Stanley Kurtz]A CNN article on Sarah Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama’s relationship to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers actually cites National Review as one of the publications supposedly debunking Palin’s point. How CNN can cite National Review this way is a mystery to me. Maybe we’ll have to set up an NR "truth squad."

I was very briefly on CNN immediately after the McCain campaign called for me to be given access to UIC library. A CNN reporter interviewed me, and almost every question was an attempt to challenge the significance of the Obama-Ayers link. I answered every query in detail. When the report finally aired, my points about the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection were cut. And now, CNN is actually claiming NR as an ally in its effort to undercut Palin. Incredible.

Re: NYT’s Ayers-Obama Whitewash [Ed Whelan]A quick follow-up to Stanley’s post: Isn’t it about time that campaign reporters demand live answers from Obama himself, rather than from uninformed campaign aides, about the basics of his relationship with Bill Ayers?

For starters: When did you first meet Bill Ayers? When did you first meet Bernardine Dohrn? When did you first learn that they were unrepentant terrorists? Did you ever tell either of them that you condemned their terrorist activities? Did you ever express reservations to anyone about serving on boards with Ayers? About funding his radical educational initiatives? About having him host a political reception for you? About accepting a campaign contribution from him? How many times have you or your wife been in his home? How many times have he or Dohrn been in yours? Did you meet with Ayers before becoming chair of the CAC board? When did you last have any communication with Ayers or Dohrn?

And so on. Get to work.

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash [Stanley Kurtz]As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught.

The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed sporadically...at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. Shane mentions the book endorsement, yet says nothing about the book’s actual content. Nor does Shane mention the panel about Ayers’ book, on which Obama spoke as part of a joint Ayers-Obama effort to sink the 1998 Illinois juvenile crime bill. Again, we have unmistakable evidence of a substantial political working relationship. (I’ve described it in detail here in "Barack Obama’s Lost Years."

The Times article purports to resolve the matter of Ayers’ possible involvement in Obama’s choice to head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, yet in no way does so. Clearly, the article sides with those who claim that Ayers was not involved. Yet the piece has no credibility because it simply refuses to present the arguments of those who say that Ayers almost surely had a significant role in Obama’s final choice.

Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obama’s name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamond’s key points, or the documents that back it up. (I’ve made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.

The Times also ignores the fact that I’ve published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See Obama’s Challenge.) Maybe that’s because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.

Shane’s story also omits any mention of the fact that access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records was blocked. What’s more, thanks to a University of Chicago law student’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we now know that access to the documents was blocked by an old Obama associate, Ken Rolling, on the day I first tried to see them. And as a result of my own FOIA, we also have evidence that Rolling may have been less than fully forthcoming on the question of Ayers’ possible role in elevating Obama to board chair at Anneberg. In fact, Rolling seems to have been withholding information from a New York Times reporter. I’ve made this material public in a piece called, Founding Brothers. How could a responsible article on the topic of Obama, Ayers, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ignore the story of the blocked library access and the results of the two FOIA requests? How could a responsible paper fail to aggressively follow up on the questions raised by those requests, and by the documents and analysis presented by Steve Diamond?

Most remarkably of all, Shane seems to paper over the results of his own questioning. On the one hand, toward the end of the piece we read: "Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship." And it’s no wonder, says Shane, since Ayers was caught expressing no regret for his own past terrorism in an article published on September 11, 2001. Yet earlier in Shane’s article we learn that, according to Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt, Obama and Ayers "have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005." Very interesting. Obama’s own spokesman has just left open the possibility that there has indeed been phone and e-mail contact between the two men between 2002 and 2004, well after Ayers’ infamous conduct on 9/11. Yet instead of pursuing this opening, Shane ignores the findings of his own investigation and covers for Obama.

The New York Times in the tank for Obama? You bet. And sinking deeper every day.

I posted this video a few days ago. Time-Warner invoked copyright infringement due to some of the music in the background. What a farce! The effectiveness of the information in this video is what rang the bell. A well placed phone call here... a phone call there... and what do you know... Time-Warner insists the video (censorship anyone?) be taken down at Youtube.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

My apologies for the lack of posts these many months. Things are up in the air as to continuing the present format of this blog. Needless to say... there really is so much to comment on... and so little time.

I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died this morning in his study in Stamford, Connecticut.

He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.

As you might expect, we’ll have much more to say here and in NR in the coming days and weeks and months. For now: Thank you, Bill. God bless you, now with your dear Pat. Our deepest condolences to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. And our fervent prayer that we continue to do WFB’s life’s work justice.

He was the model of the modern American intellectual. He published a small magazine of ideas whose influence and centrality to the country in which he lived vastly outdistanced publications with 100 times its readership. He wrote a newspaper column for a half-century, twice or three times a week, at which he grew so expert that he could dash one off in the time it took his driver to navigate the length of the Bruckner Expressway, and with a quality of prose that made other newspaper scribes seem as simple-minded as the anonymous authors of Dick and Jane. He ran for office once, a fool’s errand that led to the publication of one of the best books ever written about politics, The Unmaking of a Mayor. He was one of the first writer-thinkers to find a home on television with his show Firing Line, and his wit made him a superb talk-show guest. For all these reasons, he transcended his roots and became a pop-culture icon, the only writer to have appeared as a caricatured figure in a Disney movie (when the genie in Aladdin, voiced by Robin Williams, converts himself into Buckley, complete with his patented lean-back in a chair, as he details the “three-wish” rule). From the first to the last, however, he had an intellectually transcendent purpose from which he never deviated: The explication of, defense of, and advancement of, traditional mores and traditional beliefs, and a concomitant commitment to the notion that social experiments are very dangerous things indeed. He was, ever and always, a serious man in an increasingly unserious time.

Pages

John Owen...

"Let faith look on Christ in the gospel as he is set forth dying and crucified for us. Look on him under the weight of our sins, praying, bleeding, dying; bring him in that condition into thy heart by faith; apply his blood so shed to thy corruptions: do this daily."

The Mere Mercy of God

This calling of Abram is a signal instance of the gratuitous mercy of God. Had Abram been beforehand with God by any merit of works? Had Abram come to him, or conciliated his favour? Nay, we must ever recall to mind that he was plunged in the filth of idolatry; and God freely stretches forth his hand to bring back the wanderer. He deigns to open his sacred mouth, that he may show to one, deceived by Satan's wiles, the way of salvation.

But this is done designedly, in order that the manifestation of the grace of God might become the more conspicuous in his person. For he is an example of the vocation of us all; for in him we perceive, that, by the mere mercy of God, those things that are not are raised from nothing, in order that they may begin to be something.

-John Calvin, Genesis, (Banner of Truth), p. 343

"Nor the faith also does not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards GOD (for we are most bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his holy Scripture, all the days of our life): But it excludes them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification: but our justification doth come freely by the mere mercy of God..." (Thomas Cranmer - Homily of Justification)

Be Not Deceived...

Sin is never less quiet, than when it seems to be most quiet; and, its waters are for the most part deep, when they are still.- John Owen

Justification-Sanctification/Law-Gospel

In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)

The law guides, directs, commands, all things that are against the interest and rule of sin. It judgeth and condemneth both the things that promote it and the persons that do them; it frightens and terrifies the consciences of those who are under its dominion. But if you shall say unto it, “What then shall we do? this tyrant, this enemy, is too hard for us. What aid and assistance against it will you afford unto us? what power will you communicate unto its destruction?” Here the law is utterly silent, or says that nothing of this nature is committed unto it of God: nay, the strength it hath it gives unto sin for the condemnation of the sinner: “The strength of sin is the law.” But the gospel, or the grace of it, is the means and instrument of God for the communication of internal spiritual strength unto believers. By it do they receive supplies of the Spirit or aids of grace for the subduing of sin and the destruction of its dominion… (John Owen, A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace)